'2' sounds good to me too ... just in the
sense optional is always good, especially if small, isolated dependency.
'1' wouldn't be that bad. I don't know
of any adopters who would get xsl, who do not also get xsd.
It would not effect our wtp/pde build
at all. I can't speak to the Hudson/Tycho-based
build (but doubt it).
And, no, should not effect feature dependencies
... you'd want to avoid that, or else it's not so optional any longer.
Sounds like a cool, much needed functionality.
Jesper Steen Møller
Tools developer discussions." <wtp-wst-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
10/11/2010 06:14 PM
Extending the XPath (2) view
Hi WST dev
I'm in the process of adding XML Schema awareness to the XPath2 computations
in the XPath view, which is delivered in the XSL feature.
In short, it will allow the XPath2 processor to evaluate against the full
PSVI of the in-memory XML SSE-based DOM.
Obviously, this requires the XSD Feature to be present as well, which raises
a question of dependencies, since so far, the XSD and XSL features have
been independent of each other.
I see three possibilities going forward, and since I'm not too familiar
with the build process, I'd like the list's advice on how to progress:
1) XSL requiring XSD
2) XSL optionally requiring XSD
3) Abstract the dependency into separate bundle so current dependencies
are not disturbed
Do any adopters have an opinion about this?
I'd like to go with option 2 - should be easy enough to add the type provider
dynamically if it can be loaded - but while I'm sure I can handle the runtime
aspects, I'm concerned how this will affect the build procedure, both for
the PDE build and the Hudson/Tycho-based one. Will feature dependencies
need to be adjusted?